Re: PROV-ISSUE-546: Notation Section 3.7.4 [prov-n]

Dear all,

Find a proposed response for ISSUE-546.  Feedback appreciated.

Regards,
Luc

>
>       ISSUE-546 (Encoding)
>
>   * Original
>     email:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2012Sep/0140.html
>   * Tracker:http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/546
>   * Group Response:
>       o The comment refers to the previous working draft.
>       o Where possible, the latest draft makes reference to existing
>         productions in other recommendations.
>       o The PROV-N document specifies the PROV-N notation only, and is
>         not normative for other encodings such as XML, HTML, or others.
>   * References:
>       o PROV-N definition of
>         STRING_LITERAL:http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-n/#prod-STRING_LITERAL
>       o SPARQL definition of
>         STRING_LITERAL:http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rSTRING_LITERAL2
>   * Changes to the document: none
>   * Original author's acknowledgement:
>
>
>     [edit
>     <http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/index.php?title=ResponsesToPublicComments&action=edit&section=53>
>



On 10/09/12 11:03, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-546: Notation Section 3.7.4   [prov-n]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/546
>
> Raised by: Paolo Missier
> On product: prov-n
>
> The encoding system should be explicitly defined (e.g., "#x22").
>
> Is the encoding mandatory when provenance is expressed in languages other than HTML or XML (e.g., RDF)?
>
>
>
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm